titan_uranus

Sydney over Hawthorn was huge for the season - their start to the year was slow, but as the players come back in Sydney is returning to premiership threat. Hawthorn has a pretty easy draw from here, but their next game is in Adelaide against Port. Lose that and they'll be two games behind the Power, and I don't think any side wants to play a final in Adelaide this year. Fremantle's best is good enough, but where has it gone? Round 1 was their peak so far this year, and they're nowhere near that at the moment. No Walters is killing them up forward. Edit: hadn't considered how tough Fremantle's draw has been - they've only played finals contenders so far. Geelong next week too, but after the bye they have Bulldogs, Adelaide, Richmond, Brisbane, West Coast, Melbourne, GWS, St Kilda, Carlton. Should be able to get back on track with that stretch. North is a huge tease; they can beat the best, but they don't show up every week. Gold Coast is flying under the radar; their next three games are St Kilda, the Bulldogs and Adelaide. They could easily be 8-2 or 7-3 after 10, which is a great platform to shoot for the top 8 (their following five games are Sydney, West Coast, Geelong, Hawthorn and Collingwood though, so it also could unravel).

We're the better side, we play the ground better, and we're in better form. Being a Melbourne supporter, I can't shake the MFCSS though, and I'm genuinely worried we'll lose. That's pretty rank. I mean, it's not illegal, but I find it very hard to believe he genuinely thought he'd kicked that. If we're going to fine people for staging (which we should), that should count.

Any sight of either Riley or Clisby?

I suspect if Frawley doesn't make it, one of Garland or Dunn will be pushed forward and Clisby will come in as a defender.

Our case was very strong, but I didn't think we'd win. I'm so utterly over the moon that we did. Getting an accurate depiction of what transpired at the appeal (and the original hearing, for that matter) via the media, and in particular those in the media whose preference for journalism is tweeting, is difficult. Keeping that in mind, though the reports of what went down at the hearing today did not, on their face, make it sound like we were going to win, it has to be remembered that this was two QCs arguing their point to two more QCs plus a lawyer. There was always going to be complexity to the arguments that wasn't easily explained via Twitter or a live feed. I found the wording of the rule in particular from this document: http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/AFL-Tribunal-Booklet-2012.pdf On page 12 it defines the charge of 'Rough Conduct'. It's not an official set of rules, nor is it current to 2014 (the rule now makes clear that a headclash is something that players ought reasonably foresee, in light of the Lindsay Thomas decision last year). But it's something. It was an appeal - the appealing party always goes first.

There is a lot of rubbish being thrown around regarding this saga. First, we get morons like Damian Barrett who spurt the 'we have to protect the head' line. Of course we do, no one is debating that. It's not the policy of the AFL's that we're concerned with here, it's the implementation of that policy, and in particular, it's implementation in Viney's circumstances. For that reason Barrett's entire article is, like the rest of his pathetic existence, irrelevant. Second, we get those who say 'it's not Viney's fault, it's the rule'. Actually, I think the rule is relatively decent. It provides that if you elect to bump and you had a realistic alternative to bumping, then the onus is on you to avoid the head. That's fair, I think - if you are on the field, you have the option of bumping and the option of, for example, tackling, then if you make that decision to bump, and you hit a player in the head, then you should be penalised. Again, the issue is in the application of that rule to this situation - Viney did not 'elect' to bump. He 'elected' to brace himself for impact. The rule also provides that if you don't have a realistic alternative to bumping, then you can't be held liable for the consequences. The word 'realistic' gets lost in this debate. It's one thing to say he had alternatives - yes, theoretically he could have jumped, or he could have dropped to the ground to let Lynch run over him, or he could have leaped forward, or he could have pivoted, or whatever. But is any one of those options 'realistic'? Of course not. Realistically, he had no alternative course of action but to brace himself for impact given he and Lynch were running towards each other and the ball had bounced away from him. So I'm not upset at the wording of the rule, or the AFL's general policy to attempt to reduce head injuries. I'm upset at the way that rule has been implemented by the Tribunal, which IMO has got it unquestionably and unjustifiably wrong. The appeal ground, that the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable Tribunal could have come to it given the evidence, is a high bar to clear. Very high. But it's designed to avoid decision-makers coming to conclusions that are pre-conceived or irrational. Here, the evidence before the Tribunal simply does not, in any manner, lend itself to the conclusion that Viney had a realistic alternative to contesting the ball. To me, that's sufficient to clear the bar, and that's without acknowledging that Viney didn't even bump, or elect to bump, in the first place. Except for, you know, the Trengove appeal. All of two years ago. Agreed - Hodge got off last year through a correct implementation of this rule. He had no realistic alternative. Unfortunately, the Tribunal (and, I suppose, the Appeals Board) do not operate on a model of precedent. It's a disgrace, it's something the AFLPA under Matt Finnis wanted changed, but it's how things are.

I don't agree. Georgiou was hanging on to Jenkins trying to bring him down. Jenkins then appears to pick Georgiou's legs up and push him down into the ground. Compare what Jenkins did with what Viney did - which would you prefer to see eradicated from the game?

I think there is something to be said to require the Tribunal jury to provide reasons for its decisions. The MRP is required to provide written reasons, but the Tribunal, despite being higher in the hierarchy and with far stronger powers, does not. In the court system, it is the lower courts and tribunals that do not need to provide written reasons, but the higher you go, especially to the appeal levels, written reasons become essential to the justice system. That way, we could understand exactly how the jury reasoned that Viney had a realistic alternative. More importantly, one of the possible appeal grounds is error at law. If the jury misapplied the test the Chairman set out (the 5 elements to the offence), we'd have a strong argument. But we don't know what reasoning/process the Tribunal went through. Nope. As is almost always the case with legal appeals, you don't try to bring in new evidence, you raise an issue as to the legality/correctness of the Tribunal decision.

That's not correct, they've made out this charge on the basis that he elected to bump (questionable) and that he had no realistic alternative (ridiculous finding), but even if it was, that is exactly what is wrong with the MRP and the Tribunal. No, that's not correct. The rule is: Without limiting the above, the Player Rules provide that a player will be guilty of rough conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless: a) the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or b) the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen. In finding Viney guilty the jury has held that he had a realistic alternative. That finding, on the evidence, is incredulous. 1. That was Nathan Schmook, who told everyone on the AFL website that it was unlikely Viney would get found guilty. 2. He might be referring there to the size of the penalty, as opposed to the finding of guilt (that statements comes after the sentence about 200 points and two weeks). 3. At any rate, if it's indeed the case that an appeal runs the risk of the penalty being increased, it's not a fait accompli that we are going to appeal this. Even though IMO we most definitely should.

Tyson's goal, and the fact that we withstood their comeback.

When Gleeson referred to spinning out of the way, apparently (according to Graeme Bond who was at the hearing) he was merely providing example of what Viney thought he could have done. At no point did he put it to Viney that he should have spun out of the way. Journalists have misrepresented him there. We don't need to adduce fresh evidence to appeal. We simply need to show there was an error of law or that no reasonable Tribunal could have come to this decision - either of these options (the latter one is better) are open to us. Legally, that seems to me to be a good argument to us, but the risk of the suspension going up may sway us in favour of just accepting the 2 weeks (which is why IMO they gave the 2 weeks). I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you that the head is sacrosanct, nor do I think anyone is disagreeing with you that the head should be protected by AFL rules. It's not that. It's the application of those rules to this case. Specifically, it's the application of those rules to a situation in which a player did not bump, and even if he did, had no realistic alternative in the circumstances.

That's not correct. It's actually completely the wrong way around. You can appeal based on the four grounds I outlined earlier (error of law, Tribunal could not reasonably have come to that decision, penalty manifestly excessive etc.) but you cannot usually adduce new evidence. This is from an article about Brent Harvey's appeal in 2012: Tribunal rules dictate that the only grounds for clubs to refer a tribunal decision to the appeals board are ''an error of law, a grossly unreasonable decision, a manifestly excessive classification or a manifestly excessive sanction''. New evidence is only allowed if appeals-board members are convinced that evidence could not have been produced for the preceding tribunal hearing, and was significant enough to prompt the tribunal to overturn.

The first downside is the $5,000 fee. If we win we get $2,500 back, but at a minimum we're $2,500 for even trying. Otherwise yes, I'd assume the Appeals Board will have the power to vary the Tribunal's penalty, which could make it higher. Which explains: I would not be surprised at all if the reasoning was to give him 2 weeks as an incentive to not appeal.

In order to sustain this charge, the Tribunal has to have believed on this evidence that Viney was not contesting the ball, or alternatively if he was contesting the ball, he had a realistic alternative way to contest the ball than what he did. How anyone, let alone former AFL players, come to this conclusion is staggering. Must be appealed, not for policy reasons (which are obviously also in our favour), but legally. This decision cannot stand.

Again according to 2012 information (can't see any recent information from the AFL, which is typical), the charge of 'rough conduct' (which is what Viney was found guilty of) is: Rough conduct is interpreted widely in relation to any contact which is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances. It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable. Without limiting the above, the Player Rules provide that a player will be guilty of rough conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless: a) the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or b) the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen. In the interests of player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all players and will guide the application of the rule. From the above, there is a possible error in law (incorrect application/explanation of this rule; it cannot be rough conduct if the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball (REALISTIC FFS)) as well as the much clearer decision was so obviously wrong. REALISTIC. ALTERNATIVE.

As far as I know, the Tribunal can impose any penalty, not just the one the MRP may have imposed. So he could get a reprimand even if they think it's negligent/high impact/all that crap.

According to 2012 information, which AFAIK hasn't changed, the grounds for appeal are: Error in law. That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it. Classification of offence manifestly excessive. Sanction imposed manifestly excessive. The second one is important here; the third may also be relevant (i.e. to call this 'rough conduct' is 'manifestly excessive'). Not sure how to argue the first one in the circumstances of a jury making a decision (juries are fact finders).

So, to summarise, the jury has answered the following questions: 1. Did Viney bump? Yes (this point should be appealed) 2. Did that cause forceful contact? Yes (no challenge here) 3. Was he contesting the ball? Yes (surely they didn't answer this 'no'; relevance of this question is unknown) 4. Did he have a reasonable alternative? No (this MUST be appealed) 5. Was the bump cause by circumstances outside his control? No (this point should be appealed)

Again, I want us to appeal, just like we did with Trengove, but I'm sure that again we'd lose if we did. How anyone could have looked at the Chairman's five points and come to the conclusion of guilt is beyond me, genuinely beyond me.

Wow. Honestly, I was expecting it, but wow.

The longer it goes, the more nervous I get. Doesn't mean Gleeson's case is any good though; it's not (not from what has been made public so far). We've seen the jury come to some relatively baffling decisions in the past, so I wouldn't put it past them from happening again.

Looks like we've put a very strong case. Mind you, I thought that about the Trengove tackle, but still. First strong argument - he did not elect to bump. I think that's pretty decent for us, he didn't 'elect' to do anything in that split second, it was reactionary, and even if he did 'elect' to do something, it was an election to brace for impact, not to bump. That should be sufficient to dispense with things. Second strong argument - he did not have any reasonable alternative to what he did. A point to be remembered - it is a focus on reasonable alternatives. So, theoretically, he maybe could have pushed off one foot and spun out of the way, but is that a reasonable alternative? Of course not. I really cannot see this charge standing based on the way the Chairman framed the issue to the jury and the facts. Could be money. Could also be that Findlay doesn't need to be a QC in order to be qualified. Could be that Gleeson does a lot of the AFL's other work anyway.

I'm resigned to Viney being suspended for this. I think it's wrong, I think it's yet another indicator of the AFL's many flaws, but I know it's going to happen anyway.

Love the positivity, but let's just keep whatever kind of lid we have on things. With games yet to play against Port Adelaide (twice), Hawthorn, Geelong, Fremantle, Collingwood, Essendon, North Melbourne (twice) and a trip to Perth, no one would begrudge us for missing the finals. Surely.

I'm not sure if Terlich is good enough to be a long-term AFL player, but he seems to have made some steps in improving his defensive work the last month. Still commits the unfortunately-too-common howler coming out of defence, which he needs to eradicate, but I'm seeing some improvement at least.